Talk:Public finance

This Article Needs Help!

After reading through the article, I would note that calling it Quality:StartClass is charitable, to say the least. It is really more of a stub level quality at present.

The article reads like a list of related topics, not like an enclyclopedia article. So I agree with the priority assessment of the Tax-related wikiproject; it should be a high priority for update. I will try to add a little to the mix from the economic theory point of view, but hope that several others with more expertise will roll up their sleeves and wade into it with me. N2e 16:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I think I assessed it and probably should have marked it as a stub. I guess I was feeling kind and that it might have offered some readers what they are looking for. Anyway... I had nominated this article for Tax COTM - so please vote on it so perhaps it will get some more attention. I'll try to work on it myself. Morphh ^(talk) 17:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me add my 2 cents: I hit this article because I was beginning my research into government/public financing mechanisms. I was hoping for a discussion of available mechanisms and really hoping for a description of applicability and SWOT analysis. As my research progresses - maybe I will be able to add some of the content I was hoping to find. Liz Travis (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This talk section reveals a lot of confusion about the relationship between "public finance" and "public economics?" Basically, public finance is an older term for what is now called public economics. The word "finance" in "public finance" led to confusion with the separate area of "finance" (e.g. investments, corporate finance, etc.), and thus is not used as much. Also, some would argue that public economics is broader and not only includes what used to be call public finance but also related sub-disciplines of economics like public choice theory. Either way, I think it is redundant to have separate pages for both public finance and public economics. Derek Pyne2 (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  Also, the government has many ways of gaining and spending its money. This include: 
  GAINS'
  -Borrrowing: The government can borrow money internally or externally
  -Taxes: It is the most important source of government revenue.
  -Grants and aid from friendly countries
  -Interest on loans
  SPENDS
  -Economic infrastructure
  -social infrastructure
  -public investments
  -social security expenditures
  -maintenance of law and order and national defence
  -managing the national debts.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.72.167.125 (talk • contribs)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to basics

Financing government expenditures: Government financing can be achieved by taxes, borrowing, seigniorage, sale of assets or consumption of fiscal reserves. No? (The last two are highly popular in Hong Kong.) DOR (HK) (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... Yes? Why shouldn't these be possibilities to finance goverment expenditures? Did somebody here make any further judgment about those being wise or not? These are certainly possibilities that can achieve the goal of financing some goverment expenditures, but this does not say that all of them are advisable from an economic point of view. ;-) By the way the last two seem to be very popular around the world in the last 10 years or so. Regards, --Kmw2700 (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Look out for possible copyright violations in this article

This article has been found to be edited by students of the Wikipedia:India Education Program project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the India Education Program talk page for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no material violating copyrights remains in here. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Preference revelation

Rubin removed the section that I created for the preference revelation problem. The explanation he provided was "Somewhat relevent, but much too long". Much too long? Is that a valid reason for removing extremely well cited, relevant and very important content? --Xerographica (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that your addition were "well-cited, relevant, and very important", it would still be undue weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight...based on...what? --Xerographica (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see how it's relevant at all, except through one of the other articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dozens and dozens of times you've accused me of inserting irrelevant content into articles. I think this might be the solution...

Overall, I am for betting because I am against bullshit. Bullshit is polluting our discourse and drowning the facts. A bet costs the bullshitter more than the non-bullshitter so the willingness to bet signals honest belief. A bet is a tax on bullshit; and it is a just tax, tribute paid by the bullshitters to those with genuine knowledge. - Alex Tabarrok, A Bet is a Tax on Bullshit

How much would you be willing to bet that preference revelation is not relevant to public finance? --Xerographica (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

As relevance is somewhat subjective, and certainly means something different in Wikipedia than it does in economics, a bet would be pointless. However, I can't see how any potential relevance of "preference revelation" to "public finance" is not more relevant to "public economics", which suggests that the segment should not be in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. A bet on whether it's considered relevant on Wikipedia might be appropriate. However, the stakes could be non-monetary; if you lose, you stop adding material which is perceived to be irrelevant.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

So you're not willing to bet any money that you're right? You have absolutely no confidence in the validity of your position? --Xerographica (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no confidence that there are objective criteria to determine who wins. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You said that preference revelation is not at all relevant to public finance. If I provide evidence that proves you wrong then you'll lose the bet. If my evidence is inadequate, inconclusive or open to interpretation, then I'll lose the bet. So how much are you willing to bet that you're right? How about $40? The objective here is to encourage you to have actual information/evidence/knowledge before you challenge my edits. This will hopefully prevent you from continuously wasting massive amounts of my time. --Xerographica (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

For my money, this "bet" is not a discussion that builds or follows WP:CON. (In fact, it looks more like a taunt.) What are the proposals for improving the article? Drafting prose, supported by RS, is what works. (Moreover, how editors spend or waste their time is entirely their own responsibility.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I added reliably sourced prose, Rubin deleted it. He deleted it because he believes that preference reference is not at all relevant to public finance. If he has any evidence to support his belief then he'll accept my offer to bet on it. If he's not willing to bet on it then clearly he removed my reliably sourced prose on a whim. How can I possibly contribute reliably sourced content if Rubin is going to delete it solely on the basis of his opinion? --Xerographica (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Per 3 edits ago, unduly problematic article edits can cause problems for others as well, I regret to say.

1T. Irrespective of the merits on either side of the above, the previous edit and the related one above quoting Alex Tabarrok (but not WP-signed by Tabarrok) are IMO a kind of taunt. If it is and if it continues after being warned about it, here or elsewhere, that's a violation of WP:CIVILITY policy.§

2T. From the search suggestions at the bottom of Talk:Public choice#Simplifying and consolidating similar sections or on his own, X. may well know where to find "preference revelation" in The New Palgrave (at http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/search_results?button_play.x=0&button_play.y=0&q=%22Preference+revelation%22&edition=current), which has the public finance entry at the top of the list. That goes back to A.'s original (& central) point on wp:undue weight policy.* How much is there on Preference revelation via Public choice is in the New Palgrave article? So linking them comes across as testing the limits of WP:NPOV policy.

3T. Within the JEL classification codes "Public finance" is classified as a JEL-general aspect of Public econ (note its classification as such at http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/search_results?q="public+finance"&field=content&edition=current&topicid=H0 ). So one might consult the Handbooks at Public economics#References. If you don't find "Preference revelation" but find something else that's related, like public goods, maybe that's a less problematic way to proceed, rather than through to lens of Public choice.

4T. I do object to populating a section with citations that are not specific as to date, author, source, etc., such as in the deleted section http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Public_finance&diff=538849984&oldid=538800670. Such citations should offend both the general reader and the specialist. For an experienced editor trying an ambitious edit, there is much to be said for cultivating the http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/i.html#IntensiveMargin (like a hypothetical specialist), not the extensive margin (Johnny Appleseed).

5T. A final point. There are just too few people with the background and capabilities to improve the econ articles as they should be. That's where good sense the principle of charity (which does preclude ruthless criticism), a deep appreciation as relevant WP:Policies, and viewing an edit the way one thinks that the specialist in the subject might take an Edit can help. Incompetence is one thing. That's not what I'm suggesting are the problems here. Implicature not a rhetorical bludgeon, should be the way of making progress in arriving at a consensus.

§ Ironically, Arthur may have have been too kind here.

* Numbering my points, as above, I have found is one way to keep discussion on track. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

To X: The material was removed on more than a whim, nor solely on the basis of his opinion. Compare, you may want to add solely on the basis of your opinion. Look to build consensus supporting what you want to put in. Regrettably, you may find little support. If so, you've got to live with the consensus of the project. As an alternative to betting, you might try dispute resolution. – S. Rich (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thomasmeeks, Rubin removed the section that I added because he's of the opinion that preference revelation is not at all relevant to public finance. Yet, consider the following...

Many public finance textbooks devote considerable attention to preference revelation and other political economy issues, including voting rules and the incentives of politicians and bureaucrats, which may give rise to government failures. - Inge Kaul, Blending External and Domestic Policy Demands

That passage covers both relevance and proper weight. I identified where there's significant room for improvement, I made an effort to summarize the problem and then I added well cited prose to this article. Rubin, on the other hand, simply undid my well researched effort entirely on the basis of his opinion. So can you please clarify exactly what you meant by saying that Rubin "may have been too kind here"? Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

6T. The last-quoted is a fn. to (1T) above. I have italicized the opening part of (1T) that might have been overlooked in formulation of the 2nd-to-last sentence above, [which] look like a merely rhetorical question. [It] looks like changing the subject [in] not addressing the point in (1T).

7T. For the benefit of other readers, X. introduced into the currently deleted section what I think is in violation of the WP:CONTENTFORKING guideline. The Preference revelation article X. created was copied into Public econ with only trivial changes.

8T. It's unfortunate that X. is directing Inge-Kaul quotation to me now, rather than when & to whom it might have been more usefully deployed {preferably without incurring the wages of wagering )

9T. Nor as in the deleted-section lead sentence is it OK to use Public choice as the lens through which to view Public finance.

10T. It's OK to raise the undue-weight question with AR above.

11T. It's not OK IMO to ignore the finer-grain specifics of (2T) above.

12T. At the same time, I understand X's concern about entirely excluding mention of preference revelation or some possibly more appropriate cognate, although it's in the abstract of http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_P000245&edition=current&q=Preference%20revelation&topicid=&result_number=5 ("Public goods"). IMO a couple of sentences would due here w sources like Musgrave (1959) and Musgrave&Musgrave at Public finance#References. More might be appropriate in Public economics#Public goods but not in the similarly-problematic sections removed there (on which see http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Public_economics&diff=538849947&oldid=538799284). Why more there?

12T.1 Something more is already in that section using not a public-choice but a pub-econ framework.

12T.2. PE contains Pub.Fin. (at least in the JEL classification codes#Public economics JEL: H Subcategories at JEL: H41 – Public goods in having public goods as a subcategory rather than being a JELcode:General aspect of Public Econ (like Pub.Fin.) per (3T) above and Google scholar has somewhat more & better quality hits for the term. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Public+finance%22+%22preference+revelation%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= vs. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22Public+economics%22+%22preference+revelation%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 ).

12T.3. There ought to be some way of avoiding undue overlap. The above suggest rationales for doing that. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thomasmeeks, clearly my vote, based on my understanding of the relevant literature, is to include it. Clearly you disagree with my vote. Therefore I've been outvoted by you, Rubin and Rich. I've been learning that it's not about what the relevant literature says, it's about consensus. So be it. --Xerographica (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, yes. Consensus. That is the magic word. It is the principle way decisions are made on Wikipedia. And WP:AGF underwrites the process of building and achieving consensus. ("Voting" is not a favored method. See WP:VOTE.) And what do we always do based on our AGF? We avoid PA. Accordingly, any comment that refers to another editor in anything less than laudatory terms, directly or indirectly, must be done with caution. As a buddy of mine once said "Dems da rules." – S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. On another tack & per X.s comment, what the relevant literature says includes context in which it occurs. Speaking of which, in the hope the time healeth at least some things but more to the point, with reflection, might improve the present article...

13T. In the magisterial entry by Richard A. Musgrave ([1987] ] 2008), "public finance," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. (abstract), there is one mention of "preference revelation" (but with related usage elsewhere) in the extended context of the Public Expenditures & Public Goods section. There is a small Public finance#Government expenditures section that IMO might be expanded by moving down related discussion from the Overview section and including preference-revelation related remarks that avoided problems mentioned by others, including me at {2T-4T) & (7T) above. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In Musgrave's "Public Finance", the largest section is the section on "Public Goods". This section is nearly entirely dedicated to aspects of preference revelation. The "Criteria for equity" section is entirely dedicated to the benefit principle versus the ability to pay principle...which Rubin and Rich endeavored to remove from the tax article (see the revision history and talk page). Here are numerous passages on these two principles...User:Xerographica/Principles_of_taxation. The last of the three paragraphs in the "Efficiency rules" section is about preference revelation. If Musgrave's "Public Finance" is your standard, then my addition of a section on preference revelation was a significant improvement because it brought this article into much closer alignment with your standard. Therefore, Rubin's removal of the section that I added, and your support of the removal, did the complete opposite of improving this article. --Xerographica (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If Musgrave's "Public Finance" is your standard, then a "preference revelation" section would be appropriate in public goods, not in public finance. I don't think it's a good standard, but, X, at least, should be consistent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Who is your comment supposed to be for? Thomasmeeks is the one who offered Musgrave's "Public Finance" as the standard. I simply read through it and noted that a significant portion of the article focuses on preference revelation. No big surprise there given that I've actually read a significant amount of public finance literature. If you don't think Musgrave's article is a good standard then your issue is with Thomasmeeks. But I don't think Thomasmeeks, or anybody else, would object to you suggesting a better one. --Xerographica (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A reminder of wp:civil#Edit summary dos and don'ts policy might be in order here.

IMO there is no inconsistency in AR's comment and mine. I believe further that the revert improved the article & makes a better starting point for improving the article than leaving it in. Still, polarizing comments decrease the likelihood of article improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasmeeks (talk • contribs) --02:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you edited many articles with either Rich or Rubin before? If so, can you point me to a single one that you've both worked on that you feel that either of them has made significant improvements to? Personally, I've edited countless articles with Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO...User_talk:Hugo_Spinelli#My_.22mistakes.22...but I wouldn't be able to point you to a single one that they've actually improved. And if you really think that it's my lack of civility that's preventing Rich and Rubin from improving this article, then I'd be happy to step away from this article for a week so you can decide for yourself whether I'm the reason that they do not improve economic articles. --Xerographica (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll speak up for myself. [1] is my very, very small contribution to ThomasMeek's quite prodigious and worthwhile effort. – S. Rich (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The Nigeria 2023 election

By, SUNUSI AHMAD First edition

Contents : (1)*Break age (2)*Bad background of elective president (3)*privacy and policy of presidency (4)* coll or irrelevant voting system

 Chapta 1
Be  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.126.166 (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC) 

Public finance

@Bisal Chowdhury ||:The character must wear casual modern clothing such as jeans jacket and sneakers shoes. The background of the image is a social media profile page with a user name "Bisal Chowdhury", realistic, ultra 197.231.203.91 (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)